Funny that the CIA concludes that itâ€™s Bin Laden on the tape but never mentions â€“ or perhaps didnâ€™t catch â€“ the freeze framed video.
There are plausible reasons for the "freeze-framing" other than the possibility of it not being Osama.
The CIA knows Osama is dead but doesnâ€™t want al-Qaeda to know that we know. Why? Perhaps they have someone close to al-Qaedaâ€™s inner circle. Not close enough to know where they are, but close enough that our intelligence people are kept abreast of a few things. Letting on that we know Osama is dead might expose that source to al-Qaeda.
This is possible, but, if we do have a source inside the "inner circle", then why haven't killed/captured more "high ranking" people?
There are plausible reasons - including the possibility that the source is high enough to know OBL is dead but not high enough to lure Zawahiri to a specific place at a specific time.
Still, if its true that OBL is dead and the CIA is "playing dumb" about it, I would bet on the source of the info being sig-int - remember the history of how we tracked his satellite phone use until the Washington Times published this information.
Of course, its also possible that this is Osamas game - that he knows there is some speculation that he id dead, believes it to be useful, and purposely avoids providing solid proof of his life because he wants the question to remain open.
I hardly think they have grown so unsophisticated that they would be using him as Osamaâ€™s ghost writer
Why? Hes American so he knows our culture and our idioms/terminology/expressions and can communicate better than someone who has to write in Arabic and then translate.
Translation can be a huge problem - for example, the expression "let the cat out of the bag" is not universal and translating it literally would produce something that would sound odd and possibly confusing to non-Anglo people (the phrase originated in the Royal Navy). I have no doubt that many phrases that are common in Arabic sound just as odd and clunky when they are translated into English.
Zawahiri is VERY media conscious - in his book "Knights under the Prohets Banner" he specifically credits the failures by Islamic movements in the 90s to capture large popular support to insufficient & ineffective use of the media. Al Queda deliberately started making these tapes in the late 90s specifically to correct this mistake - it was NOT something they had done from the start. When it comes to the media Al-Queda has shown itself to be adaptive and willing to try new things and new ways of getting its message across. Perhaps they have decided that the earlier tapes weren't having the desired impact on American public and decided to try using a native to craft the speeches in the hope it would produce a better impact. It would not surprise me in the slightest.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 10.09.2007 @ 14:12
Some stupid college leftists drive army recruiters off campus so Malkin publishes their personal information on her website resulting in them getting bombarded by death threats from her readers, but when someone responded in kind and released some of HER personal info in TIT-FOR-TAT response to her own actions, she complained that she got .... *gasp* threatened by uncivil leftists.
She either knew or should have known that her actions would result in serious harassment of the students but she did it anyway because she didn't like their politics. When the same thing was done to her she not only acted as scared as anyone else but claimed that it was ok for her to publish their info but not for someone else to publish hers.
Malkin does not fit into the little political and intellectual boxes the left reserves for each grouping of Americans they see fit to categorize. Their (un)reasoning goes something like this: Asians are minorities. Minorities are oppressed and need the tender ministrations of liberals to save them from white Americaâ€™s depredations. All real Asians believe everything that liberals believe. If they donâ€™t, they are not â€œauthenticâ€ minorities but rather â€œsell outsâ€ to white America.
Speaking of Box-Making and "amateur psychoanalysis" ...
Maybe the reason you have to explain this "several times" is because the people you are talking to don't fit into the box you are making - the box filled with liberals who only dislike Malkin because she defies their own racial stereotypes.
Maybe most people dont like her because of her own actions.
As is typical of the open borders crowd, they advocate ignoring the law when it suits their argument.
Come on Rick -
All kinds of people, of all political affliiations, ignore laws that they feel are unjust.
The words "when it suits them" seems like your trying to make it look like they are doing this for naked self-interest which, excepting those representing the interests of businesses that rely on illegal immigrant labor, is complete garbage.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 7.09.2007 @ 12:38
Spin it any way you want, giving more than twice the coverage to Dems over Repub is a sign of bias
If someone told you that "The fact that men outnumber women in science more than 2:1 is evidence of bias" would you agree?
I dont buy "different results = bias" when it comes to gender & race and I don't buy it when it comes to politics.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 31.08.2007 @ 09:48
Correct me if Im wrong but, in sports, the team that starts the season as the favorite usually gets more coverage than the others - especially those forecasted to do poorly.
"conventional Wisdom" is that the Dems are the favorite for the WH in '08 and that WHATEVER Republican wins the nomination is going to be the underdog. Is it really suprising that the pool of expected "favorites" gets more coverage than the pool of expected "underdogs"?Comment Posted By r4d20 On 30.08.2007 @ 10:05
â€œso what do you want? Gay sex mandated in the streets?!â€
Ok, I'll say it!
I want mandatory sex-filled gay marriage for everyone!Comment Posted By r4d20 On 28.08.2007 @ 10:53
He didnâ€™t â€œrecantâ€ but I got the feeling that, having met each other face-to-face, he couldn't bring himself to just write me off as a liar as he probably would have done had the exchange taken place over the internet or in another, less personal, way.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 21.08.2007 @ 17:55
A synopsis of a conversation I had a few years back.
Truther: "....it was obviously a hoax. The evidence shows that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle, not a plane. You can tell by just looking at the pictures of the crash-site, once you know what to look for. Furthermore....blah blah blah"
Me: "Well, you make a convincing case. There is only one problem with it"
Him: "Yeah, what?"
Me: "I saw the plane crash into the building with my own eyes. "
Him: "Really? Oh."
He didn't "recant" but I got the feeling that actually meeting someone whoComment Posted By r4d20 On 21.08.2007 @ 17:48
"A faction at the agency has been attempting to undermine the Administration from day one. The fact that WSJ, WaPo, the New York Times, have all said exactly the same thing seems to have escaped your notice."..."A â€œfactionâ€ is not the agency in general nor does it apply to the overwhelming percentage of employees who are loyal and leave politics out of their careers.
I've seen plenty of ACCUSATIONS in in the editorial pages of all three.
Look - I have no doubt that there are CIA employees who are political opponents of Bush and/or disagreed with his policies and I have NO doubt that some of them did things that objectively conflicted with the agenda of the President and that some of them even broke the law (leakers), but definition of this so-called "faction" is more elastic than Mearsheimer & Walt's "Israel Lobby".
Just like they defined the "Lobby" to include ANYONE who publicly advocated from pro-Israel policies, regardless of motive for doing so or their connection with one another, this "faction" is defined is defined such that it includes anyone who did ANYTHING that interfered the agenda of the Administration.
It incorporates everyone from those who illegally and unethically leaked classified information (they broke their oath and I support punishing them) to those who, like Joe Wilson, legally went public with Non-classified information critical of the Administration or its claims, all the way to CIA officials who didn't leak or write an op-ed but merely reported unpleasant facts.
These allegations do NOT confine themselves to arguably "political" people like Joe Wilson, who I do not find sympathetic. They have been made almost ANY and EVERY time the CIA, or anyone in it, releases (not just "leaks") information that does not support the Admins claims. When Dick Cheney claimed that there was evidence that just before 9/11, M. Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, journalists naturally asked for confirmation from the intelligence agencies. When the CIA responded that it could NOT verify these claims because it simply did not have evidence that such a meeting ever took place, accusations about this "faction" and their "politically motivated undermining of the president" duly followed!
No one dispuited that the CIA answered the question truthfully - even if the meeting did happen the CIA had NO evidence for it and could not truthfully say otherwise. They didn't say "the VP is lying" or even "the VP is wrong" - they just said "true or false, we have no evidence to confirm these claims". If THAT is "undermining" then ANYTHING short of full support is too, and that means that 90%+ of the CIA is out to "undermine" the president.
What the f@#$% were they suppose to do? Lie to make the VP look better? Thats not their job. The organization may be part of the "executive branch" but their job is to gather, store, and analyze foreign intelligence, NOT to help generate domestic support for the Admins policies - which is their own damn job! CIA employees take an oath to protect the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and the only thing they are obligated to be loyal to is the Consitution - not the president, his policies, or members of his administration like the VP
--- Furthermore ---
I have assumed that you meant "faction" in the sense of "a Group within a larger organization, such as a political party, that has similar beliefs but different goals then the whole of the organization."
Well, If you are going to talk about a "faction" in the CIA without being accused of smearing the whole organization, you had better have a coherent way of defining what makes a person a member of this "faction" - aka. what are their "different goals" and what standards of evidence can legitmately be used to prove that an individual shares these goals.
Right now it appears that main "goal" shared by all the so-far-designated members of this "faction" was to inform the public of facts that contradicted claims made by the Administration and the only standard of evidence that their actions were "politically motivated" is their party registration, ANY affiliation with traditionally Democratic organizations or causes, or ANYTHING LESS than being a 100% Pro-Administration Republican. By those criteria 90% of the CIA is in this "faction" and THAT would be a slander of the entire organization.
--- Finally ---
I assume you know that these accusations regarding the CIA are NOT NEW. They were being made at least 30 years ago when Rumsfeld & others formed "Team B" for the explicit purpose of discrediting the CIA because it would not support their allegations of new, incredibly advanced, soviet weapons and their plans to use them to attack America - because all the information the CIA had indicated that they did not exist!!
They made the same allegations then as they made now and for the same reason: The CIA will always be an albatross to agenda-driven idealogues because of the sheer volume of information it has access to will always include evidence that contradicts their claims - when the CIA has the ability to show (insofar as it can, given the nature of the intelligence business) that what you are saying is bullshit it becomes necessary to discredit the CIA! The people making these accusation know damn well that the CIA often cannot publically reveal the bulk of this evidence and so they know it will often come down to a he-said she-said where these kinds of smears can be effective.
A private wrote some stories that purported to detail "rude" behavior by a few soldiers while NEVER claiming to be indicative of American Soldiers in general or any "faction" in the military, or anything other than a personal account of individual actions by individual soldiers. You and others claimed that, by doing so, he had knowingly and intentionally slandered the military and all his fellow servicemen - even though I heard stories of worse behavior by my Grandmother, and Army Nurse in the Euopean theater in WWII, including an attempted sexual assault, by GIs, that she narrowly escaped.
Now you (and others) are assert that there IS a coherent faction in the CIA that willfully jepordizes American security for the sole purpose of scoring political points against Bush and dismiss it when I say that this borders on slander.
Unlike you I will not "mind read" and assert that, because it makes no sense, you must be disingenous and have some ulterior motive. I think its much more simple; you simply have not examined some deeply held assumptions/stereotypes. You can believe the former because it agrees with the "liberals hate the troops" stereotype we both grew up with, but since there is no "Conservatives hate the CIA" stereotype you cannot even see that the "faction" talk is as slanderous as any of the conspiracy theories peddled by Hollywood liberals like Oliver Stone.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 14.08.2007 @ 19:03
Instead, we have bad guys who in real life are good guys. Par for the course in a place that for the last 40 years or so has had an enemy identification problem.
Yeah - the CIA are "the good guys" ... except when its convenient for you to accuse them of being a cabal determined to undermine the president even at the expense of the country.
Make up your mind.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 13.08.2007 @ 16:11
We know the profile for a terrorists. It seems foolish not to closely monitor these people.
You mean White & Christian like Tim McVeigh? Yeah, I agree. We should keep an eye on those traitors.Comment Posted By r4d20 On 13.08.2007 @ 12:26